Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Fri, 08 July 2011 08:01 UTC
Return-Path: <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5198B21F874F for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 01:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.692
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.907, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L35pM4ctGG52 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 01:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net (145.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D655B21F874E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 01:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ICTPC ([78.145.15.218]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:01:16 +0100
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: "'Steven R. Loomis'" <srl@icu-project.org>
References: <4E14F473.6030101@qualcomm.com> <4E152E4F.9070203@gmail.com> <CAJ2xs_Fm0NLOyL6PLps=77mb=o-gU2cCvi0=i0nj6NQJ01qnVw@mail.gmail.com> <075f01cc3cbf$0f04ba90$2d0e2fb0$@co.uk> <CAJ2xs_ED6pmF=t=0g9G5fUJH8GyM8X+G=_juC93uuw0JHtcsJQ@mail.gmail.com> <07be01cc3ce6$114dfc90$33e9f5b0$@co.uk> <1310071653.2702.3.camel@tehran.htpassport.net> <07de01cc3cea$c0b56930$42203b90$@co.uk> <1310075884.2702.21.camel@tehran.htpassport.net> <07fb01cc3cf3$16c46170$444d2450$@co.uk> <20110707182756.7333f020@naf.sanjose.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110707182756.7333f020@naf.sanjose.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:01:51 +0100
Message-ID: <083a01cc3d45$4c365a50$e4a30ef0$@co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: Acw9DtbUXcoPM6XxTU65e0/PWxSODAANbkfA
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>, 'CLDR list' <cldr@unicode.org>, 'Pete Resnick' <presnick@qualcomm.com>, 'Roozbeh Pournader' <roozbeh@htpassport.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:01:12 -0000
Hi Steven Thanks. I really am not trying to criticise CLDR. I understand (somewhat) the problems and the needs of industry. As already mentioned, I am a supporter of both Unicode and CLDR. I will ask my colleague to speak with you about his concerns. My concern here on IETF-LTRU is that a process is being taken out of IETF unnecessarily IMHO - at least from the responses received so far, I can see no added value in CLDR functioning as the Registrar for -t extensions. Best wishes Debbie -----Original Message----- From: cldr-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:cldr-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Steven R. Loomis Sent: 08 July 2011 02:28 To: Debbie Garside Cc: 'Roozbeh Pournader'; 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'Pete Resnick'; 'LTRU Working Group'; 'CLDR list' Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie, I think that the concern about the data dump was due to some misunderstandings regarding the CLDR process. As the one who developed and manages major parts of the CLDR tooling (along with many others), I can say that the human users involved with the "data dump" (which was another misconception, that it was merely a one-way "dump") were very involved with the CLDR forum process. We are hard at work to make the vetting process easier to use for everyone. The sheer number of increased users and data the last time around, brought to the forefront stability and performance issues that were still unresolved. One of the issues is the amount of data that is in a CLDR locale can be daunting, it would be in the tens of thousands of data items. We've already introduced a system ('coverage') that lets the user reduce what is shown normally to just critical items. This system is already slated to be improved. As well, we have some faster hardware to run the server on that we will be testing out soon. I realize that you are relaying a concern from a third party, but I would invite your colleague to discuss the specific concerns with us if they had not already. One of the very exciting parts, for me, of this process is that anyone regardless of other 'status' can (and does) sign up and contribute data, and has a voice. Previous to the launch of the CLDR project about eight years ago, this locale data existed in multiple organization's repositories, where it would take a bug report to cause any change. Then I (and others in different companies, independently) would have to look at the bug report and decide when and if to spend time updating that data. Now there is a process for sorting out the data, and also a common repository and format for many projects (both open-source and commercial) to pick up and use. It's not a perfect process, but it's a process. Regards, Steven On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:13:19 +0100 "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote: > I will say just say a couple of things on this and then will let it > go. I really am not about attacking either Unicode or CLDR as I > believe I am still a member (and have been since they last printed a > hard copy - whenever that was). > > I believe that CLDR has lost experts due to a data dump from Google > that overwrote their work. I had a face to face conversation with a > colleague involved whilst in Korea three weeks ago. > > Saying that all the core people are still there after 20 years does > not address the issue of paying for votes - they may have been paying > for 20 years. In any case, I believe CLDR was created some 7 years > ago (or maybe 8). > > One could ask, how many people are on the proposed CLDR committee > and, of these, how many are not attached to paying organisations? > > Best wishes > > Debbie > > -----Original Message----- > From: cldr-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:cldr-bounce@unicode.org] On > Behalf Of Roozbeh Pournader Sent: 07 July 2011 22:58 > To: Debbie Garside > Cc: 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'Pete Resnick'; 'LTRU > Working Group'; 'CLDR list' Subject: RE: [Ltru] Fwd: > draft-davis-t-langtag-ext > > On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:13 +0100, Debbie Garside wrote: > > > I have heard from a colleague who has been instrumental in adding > > 100 locales to CLDR that many volunteers are disillusioned and have > > stopped contributing. > > That's not because of committee voting. Maintaining and updating the > data in CLDR locales uses a vetting procedure vastly different from > the CLDR commitee itself. And I have seen the feedback from experts > with limited voting right incorporated not only in CLDR data, but > also in updates to the CLDR data vetting process. From what I've > seen, most volunteer experts objections has been about not being able > to keep up with the pace of data that comes from some full members. > So, it's mostly been volunteer contributors (myself included) trying > to slow down the process, instead of voting members. So contrary to > what you think, it's the organizational and data support from the > voting members that makes sure the process is fast enough. Not only > it doesn't put development back for years, it's usually volunteer > contributors who want the process slowed down so they can catch up. > > Again, all of that is about "locale data", which is really very large > amount of data. I don't think we can use that experience to see how > the "t" extension will be maintained. A better comparison is how the > Unicode Consortium and the CLDR committee has been maintaining the > already-registered "u" extension. Do you know anybody who has had a > problem with that? > > > I would hate for IETF to find that they agree to "outsource" this > > work and then find that their volunteer experts disappear. > > Well, Unicode has been here for more than two decades, and I have yet > to see expertise disappear from it. Not only that, but also almost > all the core people are still contributing. > > Roozbeh
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext doug
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Broome, Karen
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Felix Sasaki
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Avram Lyon
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Gordon P. Hemsley
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext yoshito_umaoka
- [Ltru] Fw: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext yoshito_umaoka
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕